Ha ha, yes, because a blog network is just like a totalitarian state. I was just telling my kids they need to grow a beard and put on some weight if they ever expect to succeed me.

Pat Condell @patcondell
Ha ha. Honoured to be slandered as racist by @pzmyers and his fellow carpet-chewing PC fanatics at the ludicrously named Freethought Blogs.

“PC” is one of those dogwhistles blown by racists, Republicans, and small-minded thugs who don’t want to recognize the rights of all people…only their own privileged subset. It’s a pretty good marker for regressive idiots.

This is FreethoughtBlogs, which means we don’t kowtow to self-appointed leaders of the freethought movement. To the Condells of the world, it’s only freethought if it properly abases itself before the Loud White Men On Pedestals.

But here come the Condell followers…

The Equaliser P.A.I @Abloorable
@patcondell what an idiot @pzmyers is missing the point feminists are against the ‘list’ of crimes Pat states=acceptance of ISLAM fucks it

We begin with a proper bit of incoherence, which puts us in the right frame of mind for the flood that follows. These people make no sense at all. I don’t know what this guy is trying to say; feminists accept Islam? What?

ShorehamBoys1889 @ShorehamBoy1889
@pzmyers Pat has never been racist he just says what the majority are thinking and isn’t scared to upset the pc lefty liberal scum.

“He’s not just racist, he just says things that get anti-racists upset!” Great defense, guy. Also, what did I say about “pc”?

Veelkantie @Veelkantie
@patcondell Thank god we didn’t have much @pzmyers 70 years ago blaming the ‘small groep of nazi fundamentalist’ for al wrongs at the time.

Godwin!

Yisroel Shalom @YisroelShalom
@patcondell @pzmyers good on you you racist, lol, I wish all racists were like you!! #respect to you Sir!

Yisroel, you’re not helping to make the case against Condell being a racist.

You know, if you get on Google and search for this topic, the top results are all from far right-wing sites raging against both feminism and Sharia law; they never offer any support for their claim that feminists are in bed with Islamists. Instead they just repetitively insist that they’re the same thing, and both must be opposed. It’s a really easy lie: express outrage over some abuse of Islam against women, then say that Gloria Steinem and Naomi Wolf haven’t condemned it. And it’s true! Every feminist does not stand by their fax machine, watching CNN and waiting for every atrocity so they can send out a disavowal. Instead, they fight for broader principles and the liberation of women everywhere, and condemn Islamic policies as a whole.

AZAR NAFISI: The writers of the feminist movement — Gloria Steinem, Betty Friedan and Mary Wollstonecraft — are active voices in the Iranian movement today. Their works have been translated. Women very courageously translated all of them. Those women were at the forefront of the movement.

There is something deeply wrong with you if you believe that feminism and Islam are friendly allies. It requires a deeply twisted perspective; it seems to be a story that the right wing press has been pushing hard, though, so if you only read the Daily Mail and Stormfront and Sarah Palin fan sites and the Blaze and Tea Party organs, you’ll get nothing but this breathless assertion that feminists don’t protest against Islam vehemently enough. But note one commonality: these kinds of sites hate both feminism and Islam.

I know these guys ignore what I write, for sure. I rattled off a list of feminists I read —Taslima, Maryam, Ophelia, Sikivu, Heina — to claim that any of them ignore Islamist oppression of women is simply willfully ridiculous and ignorant.

I get this a lot, and it’s hilarious. Do these people really think their heroes are above all criticism? Because that’s the issue here, not that I think I’m “above” all these people, but that I think I can disagree with them on many points.

What is wrong with you that you dare not differ from your heroes, and get offended when anyone points out their human failings?

Comments

Isn’t it interesting how “just saying what everyone is thinking but is to afraid to say” is pretty much the number one most common defense of racism, and is also used by Pat’s defender here. No, it’s not that interesting. Because they’re a bunch of racists.

An all-white, all-male Very Important London science talk — Richard Dawkins is one of the headliners — preemptively told nutty super-sensitive “feminists” (their quotes, not ours) to go on Facebook and Twitter if they wanted to “drone on about the lack of women” in the line-up. When they did, the site crashed and the hosts deleted the “joke.” Nice try.

It’s almost like these yahoos are trying to make atheism appear ridiculous.

Spot bloody on about the use of PC as code for bigoted dipshittery. Whenever I hear someone railing against the nefarious political correctness all I hear is “WAAHH YOU’RE NOT MEANT TO POINT OUT THAT I’M BEING AN ASSHOLE! YOU’RE MEANT TO NOD ALONG AND AGREE WITH EVERYTHING I SAY! BAAWW!” It is a great word to deflect against anyone who calls you out for being horrible or wrong on an issue and to never ever admit you are sorry. People who rail against political correctness are not the big brave martyrs they think they are. They are narcissistic cowards who refuse to examine their prejudices or take any responsibility for what they say.

The “above” comment is very telling. These people really think there is some sort of ranked hierarchy in atheism and they are sure it is all conservative, anti-feminist white dudes at the top and the rest of us better bow down and recognize our proper place is beneath them. Sounds exactly like the GOP.

I’m less interested in the a/s movement all the time. If being feminist and liberal are prerogatives to these people they are not my allies and I want nothing to do with them.

No, you’re missing the point. Islam isn’t a race, so Pat Condell obviously can’t be racist! He might be a xenophobic idiot, a bigot and a ranting moron, but he is most definitely not a racist. You’re the real racist for calling him a racist.

A position or opinion which the speaker does not like, but which they cannot form a good argument against, especially if agreeing with it might cause them to have to change some habit of thought or speech.

Gregory,
Yep. I saw that. I saw Silverman tell us all to be nice and quiet so that misogynist assholes wouldn’t leave his precious movement too. If I wanted to suffer sexist bullshit silently, I’d have stayed in church. I’m so done with these guys.

I’m pretty sure I’m previously on the record somewhere as generally writing off as pathetic wastes of skin anyone who uses the term ‘PC’ or ‘politically correct’* … It has just proved to be such a useful marker over the years.

Still works pretty okay, I see.

(*/Well, in fairness, maybe there’s a use in parody of those who usually do… But even there, seriously, consider yourselves warned.)

Only somewhat related, but I’ll post it here since it’s happening right now:

I find it sad how normally sensible people go off the rails and dig themselves in when someone gently points out that something they said might just be tainted by the teensiest little assumption of privilege. Dave Winer has been doing just that all day long on Twitter. (PZ posted about one of his uttering some weeks ago.)

I too liked initial Pat Condell’s anti-religion rants, but he has been going off the track more and more in last two years. This was the last drop that made me unsubscribe from him. His rants are not funny any more and he makes really, really poor research into his facts now.

In the context, especially bizzare is the tweet from Michael Stephenson. PZ lists feminists who write against islam, he serves them the evidence on silver plate, so to speak, yet they ignore it completely.

I would not be surprised if many of those were self proclaimed “true skeptics”. Sigh.

You know, it’s actually really easy to tell the difference between criticizing Islam as a violent and misogynistic religion and outright racism*. The first video of Pat I ever saw fell clearly on the racism side of the line and I’ve never paid any attention to anything he’s said or done since.

*I have no qualms using racism as a term for anti-Muslim bigotry, nor do I have a problem with using islamophobia. I think they’re both real and they’re both appropriate. I think I like using “racism” best because when someone says “Muslim isn’t a race” I can just say, “Can you define race? I don’t think “black” is really a race either. Or African, or German, or Chinese. Race is socially constructed and racists are happy to construct a “white” race to which they belong and hate anyone who doesn’t belong. That’s what racism is. Believing you’re a member of a race that is superior to others. It’s nothing to do with whether those others legitimately belong to any particular race.”

Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaidensays

yeah, what is with the “carpet chewing” thing? I’m familiar with “carpet munching” (rather familiar, I might add), but cc is a new one on me. However, interpreted to be a set of activities isomorphic with cm, I think they’re rather dead on in my case.

Not sure that it would be as accurate for all our commentariat, however.

@PZ:
I hope you update this. It’s good to see who is willing to stand up for racism. There’s a lot of practical utility there.

Because garden-variety, commonplace, majority racism, why that’s barely racism at all. We (white folk) don’t even have to notice it, if we try hard not to.

ARRRGGH! The “thinking”, the “reasoning”, the bald-faced rationalizing — it burns!

I strongly dislike people who put so much effort into normalizing racism and dismissing complaints about racism. And calling attempts to remove jackassery from language “PC” is pretty obnoxious. In fact, it waves obnoxiousness like a flag.

I too used to post Condell’s videos on my blog, but not anymore, after his right-wing connections were pointed out to me. The cringeworthy and pathetic responses from Condell’s fans that PZ quotes here would appear to somewhat prove his critics’ points.

This mob of atheists who desire to be blind followers and adhere to the majority rule don’t deserve any better, frankly. Another cancer to cut out, and the sooner the better.

Yeah, I think the problem with “carpet-chewing” vs. “carpet-munching” is that I do not recommend any actual “chewing” while engaging in carpet-munching. It tends to lead (understandably) to a withdrawal of consent, and that mean’s sexytime is over, sadface. No CHEWING!

Chew, or chewing, the carpet is not in the OED but it is in Jonathon Green’s Dictionary of Slang. Green describes it as being US slang from the 1950s and defines it as ‘to lose emotional control, to have a temper tantrum’.

Do not confuse ‘chewing the carpet’ with ‘chewing the rug’. That’s not in the OED, although ‘chewing the rag’ is, but both phrases (rag/rug) are in Green’s dictionary and in the late 19th century meant ‘to gossip’ or ‘to chatter’.

So he’s calling people mentally ill again is he? Not surprised. Condell once said that the entire country of Saudi Arabia is mentally ill. Got that? The entire country. But he’s not racist or anything because Saudi Arabia is a country and not a race.

In case people still want a label for Condell and his friends:
They’re neo-nazis.
Own superiority? Check!
Inferior other? Check!
Fear of being overrun by inferior other? Check!
Claiming to be the brave heroes who speak the unpopular truth? Check!

PZ, here are some examples of champions of feminism and political correctness who prefer to ignore atrocities committed by Islam:

The BBC
The entire British Press
The British Parliament
The British Police
The British Crown Prosecution Service

(OK, the Police aren’t always champions of feminism and politcal correctness, but they’re trying their hardest.)

All of the above organisations recently threw themselves into a frenzy to investigate and prosecute a number of aging, faded celebrities for emerging cases of sexual harrassment and assault allegedly committed as far back as the 1960s.

Now, there is nothing wrong with investigating those allegations, some of which were serious offences. But how do they justify making such a palava out of those old cases, some of which were accusations of relatively minor cases of harrassment, yet almost completely ignore the allegations that hundreds or thousands of young British girls are having their genitals mutilated THIS year – and the same will undoubtedly happen next year and every following year?

It’s so obviously because they consider that it’s acceptable to mutilate the sexual organs of a young girl if she is a “Muslim” and non-white. There’s just no other possible explanation.

Partial list of other possible explanations:
1. They’re particularly concerned about those allegations because of their own complicity in the years of abuse.
2. The media in general really likes to talk about celebrities and celebrity downfalls.
3. Crimes are very difficult to prosecute when you don’t have victims who want to press charges and testify against their attackers.
4. Crimes are very difficult to prosecute when you don’t have evidence.

You seem to be confused why they are attacking feminists, islamists, and attacking feminists for being okay with Islam (even when they’re not).

It’s just because it goes with their narrative that feminists don’t care about equality or men, and they’re just a bunch of ugly lesbian shrews. You know, real original criticisms of feminism that we haven’t seen for the last century.

Sorry, did someone just list “the entire British Press” as “champions of feminism and political correctness who prefer to ignore atrocities committed by Islam”? Really? Well, I’ve certainly never seen the Express, the Mail, and the Telegraph described in those terms before…

So your argument is that the police should not have pursued the Jimmy Savile case because he was only an old child rapist? You’re sounding awfully Catholic there.

And no, the institutions you mention aren’t generally excusing Islam; they’re recognizing that proponents of that faith are also citizens who get the protection of law, making it a difficult act to balance due process and responsible law with protecting the rights of citizens AND preventing abuses of other people’s rights.

In other words, that they don’t simply throw every person of Pakistani descent in Britain into a boat and ship them off to the Arctic or something, the apparent desired view of racist anti-immigration folks like you, is regarded as a sign that they’re soft on Islam.

And you know, the BBC doesn’t ignore Islamic atrocities. They’re a little more willing (but only a little) to disclose anti-Islamic atrocities, more so than the American media, which seems to cheer on every bomb dropped on a Muslim. Again, that doesn’t make them pro-Islam.

I have my popcorn ready.
I came to youtube 7 years ago (how time flies!), Condell was relatively big name even back then, loved his anti-religion rants but then it started to become obvious that his right wing support was getting better of him, and mere political disagreement grow to a point I couldn’t stand him any more.
Liberalism and feminism are very opposite of Islam.

I “love” how atheists who live in predominantly religious country are trying to appeal to argument from majority.

You know what I think of when someone loudly calls workers for social justice “carpet chewing”? I immediately think of someone who is a clear and strong supporter and leader for the rights of marginalized women. GOOD WORK PAT. If I were a Muslim woman, I would totally be slobbering myself to get into Pat’s awesome atheist movement. Clearly, he really cares.

I know that my classification and statements on FGM were used in debates to think of ways to eliminate the FGM. Not to mention the fact that if FTB doesn’t do anything for women’s rights then no one’s paying attention to what I do.

The “Real” workers are often too busy to blog to smack Condell down. Just last week he was lamenting the provision of asylum to 8000 Syrians as if it were 2 million (I notice he was rather “quiet” about that one. I assume it’s due to the fact he leapt on that right wing talking point and didn’t check sources).

IMHO Pat’s problem is sourcing and ethos. Ethos leads him to libertarianism and poor sourcing makes him fire off his mouth in support of idiots.

Hence that “EDL Are Not Racist, Cannot Be Racist Against Religion” argument when the EDL were attacking people called Patel because “Muslim detection seems awfully similar to Brown People Detection”

The problem is a toxic form of masculinity. One, specifically, that ties being “right” all the time with one’s intelligence, one’s masculinity, and one’s sense of self-respect. If one is lead to building their self-esteem and indeed, whole sense of self, on the notion that one is hyper-intelligent and always right.

And furthermore, inherits the cultural messages that a white man is inherently smarter and more correct than racial minorities or women, then it becomes a huge impact to one’s whole identity if they are forced to admit that they are wrong, especially if most of the people noting they are wrong are women/racial minorities. It triggers that desperate digging down and throwing up chaff in order to try and avoid the consequences and the radical change in how one constructs one’s self identity.

It’s very similar to the problem many religious people face. One’s self identity is so wrapped up with being a “church member in good standing” that any means becomes justified in fighting back the niggling doubt that there are no deities and we ourselves are responsible for our own improvement and “salvation”.

There’s also a sunk costs thing going on. The more you dig in and the more stupid shit you say out of the panic, the more you need to say because the more embarrassing it will be if you just stop and acknowledge that you’re being a giant asshole.

And of course, privilege reinforces the lot. If you’re not seeing the life experiences of “lessers” because you are free to ignore them because our society is busy telling your story not theirs and you know that you’re “better” than them and know more, it can be easy to pretend that those lessers are the real myopic ones, because I mean, someone would have pointed it out if the dominant group was actually less aware of what was going on in the world than a bunch of “lessers”.

It’s all a well oiled machine, as long as you ignore where the oil is coming from and exactly what seems to be lubricating the teeth of the gears.

Yes. Or rather, it says what overprivileged racist sexist fuckheads think but are now starting to realize there will be consequences in lowered social respect for stating bluntly.

And that’s a fucking good thing.

They spent so damn long in a culture that openly supported and encouraged vile destructive crap thrown at those in marginalized groups. The suicides, depression, ruined lives, and robbed opportunities treated as “status quo” and every crime against them rationalized into something not so bad. And that’s still not gone yet.

They stomped on anyone who even dared to speak the obvious, often fatally, certainly with heavy price and they still do. Anyone who dares to live their own lives in a way they do not approve still suffer.

But slowly, after years of pain and blood, it is starting to be no longer socially hip to be a regressive fuck. As is the natural course of rights. There was a time that people like Pat Condell or his racist atheist followers wouldn’t have been able to be atheist in public in the UK without being imprisoned. But people made it possible for regressive fucks like Pat Condell to be proudly atheist in public without fear. And it happened by slowly making it so that social approval for atheism and social disapproval to anti-atheist hate speech increased. The more the bigots felt no longer supported by the “majority” and felt they couldn’t spread their bullshit without having to stand and face the natural result of such “bravery” in a way they couldn’t stand, the less it was enforced, the less atheists needed to hide, and the more everyone realized how fucking silly they had been to deny them basic rights. The obvious shone through when it was no longer constantly strangled.

And that’s why they are so pissy. They no longer have the system where being a complete dick to real breathing people in archaic unpopular ways is something to be rewarded and celebrated. Something that receives instant plaudits and social regard. Sometimes a lesser being might feel safe enough to tell you to your face the damage you are doing or expect to be treated like a human being. Sometimes a proper dominant group person you expect to have your back will call you out on shit because they know someone like that or even worse, simply because they are not complete shits and don’t want to be surrounded by vile hate.

And that instant love and universal (as in the universal voice of those who are allowed to speak) regard being lost hits them hard, because for the first time, they either have to change and move to social bigotries that aren’t despised by more than half the populace or they have to do something their targets have to do every day to a WAY higher degree and stand firm for their identity in the face of mild criticism.

And the fact that they who never even had to think about any of that have to dare think about such choices is what drives all their rage and is why the PC excuse is clung to like a raft. Because the times changed and they ignored every single exit before and now there are potholes and I WANT MY AMERICA BACK!

Sorry douchebags, but it’s all gone. Deal with your fellow humans or become extinct, a bitter old person clinging to beliefs that become more and more horrifying to those who got to grow up without your poison being all they were allowed to hear.

3. Crimes are very difficult to prosecute when you don’t have victims who want to press charges and testify against their attackers.
Thing is, many times they do want to press charges, but they’re too scared to, or know that they’d then would have to return to living with their attackers after pressing charges, or generally distrust the authorities, or said authorities don’t really believe them.
In Brasil the police actually created special women precincts (they’re literally called that) where men aren’t even allowed in, so that women who wanted to report any form of abuse would feel safer doing it. Usually these precincts are close by and work with shelter houses. The system is far from perfect, there are too few precincts, women still have a hard time being believed, etc.
But the point is: for some crimes you have to have special arrangements to ease their reporting.
I’d say that genital mutilation, forced marriage, honour crimes, and a number of other religious motivated crimes do need such special arrangements.

Many thanks to @pzmyers and everyone at the North Korea of free thought for a most amusing start to the day.

Dear Bangladeshi atheist: Stop whining, will you. Yes, you. I know you were arrested for blogging about atheism and … yawn … don’t tell me yet again, you were charged with blasphemy and thrown in jail and might be executed. But stop whining, will you. Think of the suffering your poor British brothers have to put up with. Only this week I heard of one, Pat, and do you know what happened to him? A Minessotta professor disagreed with him on his blog. I am not exaggerating. He really did. Of course Pat could reply as much as he wanted to, and no one no one laid a finger on him, but even so… And you think you have an oppressive culture to complain about. For goodness sake grow up, or at least grow a thicker skin. Andrés

I think it’s because using a racist/colonialist tirade to take a shot at a racist/colonialist asshole runs a strong risk of simply being taken as approval from the kind of people who like that sort of thing. And because it has a lot more splash damage on the people being faux-condescended-to than it does on the intended target.

Being/pretending to be colonialist, to take a shot at a colonialist, is ironic in a bad way.

I think it’s because using a racist/colonialist tirade to take a shot at a racist/colonialist asshole runs a strong risk of simply being taken as approval from the kind of people who like that sort of thing.

Yeah Andres, you shouldn’t make clever jokes because some people might not be sharp enough to get it.

While we’re at it, lets all make a big bonfire and burn a few hundred copies of Life of Brian.

And because it has a lot more splash damage on the people being faux-condescended-to than it does on the intended target.

Being/pretending to be colonialist, to take a shot at a colonialist, is ironic in a bad way.

I tend to cautiously agree. I try to give accommodation to people using humorous reversals to hoist people from their own petard, but this is a case that does unfortunately reinforce the paternalistic attitudes reflected in the original. It’s a joke, sure. It’s not an unforgiveable, offensive, joke, sure. But it’s far from ideal either.

Yeah Andres, you shouldn’t make clever jokes because some people might not be sharp enough to get it.

While we’re at it, lets all make a big bonfire and burn a few hundred copies of Life of Brian.

That’s not exactly the issue and I believe you know that and should know that.

Honoured to be slandered as racist by @pzmyers and his fellow carpet-chewing PC fanatics at the ludicrously named Freethought Blogs.

I love when people use the phrase “politically correct”. It makes their contempt so clear. It means they can’t be bothered to try to be politic about it. They can’t even be bothered to feign respect for whatever minority group they’re hating on.

PZ, here are some examples of champions of feminism and political correctness who prefer to ignore atrocities committed by Islam:

The BBC
The entire British Press
The British Parliament
The British Police
The British Crown Prosecution Service

(OK, the Police aren’t always champions of feminism and politcal correctness, but they’re trying their hardest.)

All of the above organisations recently threw themselves into a frenzy to investigate and prosecute a number of aging, faded celebrities for emerging cases of sexual harrassment and assault allegedly committed as far back as the 1960s.

Now, there is nothing wrong with investigating those allegations, some of which were serious offences. But how do they justify making such a palava out of those old cases, some of which were accusations of relatively minor cases of harrassment, yet almost completely ignore the allegations that hundreds or thousands of young British girls are having their genitals mutilated THIS year – and the same will undoubtedly happen next year and every following year?

It’s so obviously because they consider that it’s acceptable to mutilate the sexual organs of a young girl if she is a “Muslim” and non-white. There’s just no other possible explanation.

Hold on, hundreds of thousands every year? wow. well, let’s see here, according to census info from July 2012, there’s about 5.3 Million girls age 0-14. Similarly, just under 3% of the population is muslim. Let’s be generous and assume 5 %, as the proportion may be higher amongst children.

That leaves about… 159,000 muslim girls eligible for the mutilation, so assuming all muslim families do this, we can do this for 2 years running. This doesn’t work.

Are you claiming that the immigration rate and birth rate are thus that every year 100000 muslim girls of the right age enter the uk? That’s 1/3rd of the population growth of the UK in muslim girls only? Or are people visiting the UK with the sole purpose of mutilating their girls? Seems rather unlikely.

In short, you’re either a gullible fool or a liar. You choose which you prefer.

moarscienceplz, I’ll ask you to continue that conversation in the Thunderdome thread, just because it has the potential to derail this one away from the original topic. Whether or not Condell was trying to be satirical is one thing, but arguing about whether it is useful to engage in such satire is another topic entirely. I’m not saying this as a monitor, just as a suggestion to keep it from getting out of hand here.

All of the above organisations recently threw themselves into a frenzy to investigate and prosecute a number of aging, faded celebrities for emerging cases of sexual harrassment and assault allegedly committed as far back as the 1960s.

Just pay attention to what you’re saying. It took DECADES to get these people to look seriously at such cases. That’s your standard for champions of feminism? Nice jab with the “allegedly”, what, are you afraid to go full bitchez r lying on us?

Re Andrés’ thing, I dunno where the people of, say, Mukto-mona would be on this; can see how people might twitch a bit…

But anyway, in gratuitous unasked-for-edits mode, I’d have gone with something more parallel, anyway. Like maybe: ‘Oh, you whiny western atheists, complaining about crap like monuments on courthouse lawns and prayers in the legislature and the school board and teachers teaching creationism and demanding you and your kids stand for theistic pledges and the odd shunning or being kicked out of the house ‘n shit, the odd president saying you can’t really be citizens, the political reality you can’t talk openly of unbelief and run for office… Is anyone trying to execute you? No? Is there an actively enforced three year prison sentence for apostasy in the criminal code where you’re from?’

‘No? Then shut the hell up. Those are real problems. That’s real injustice. Ya whiners. Let us ever-so-magnanimous Christians have our damned monuments and the rest of our privileges and chauvinisms; ye, so long as we charitably refrain from burning you at the stake or nothin’, seems to me we’ve done plenty. It’s not that bad. Yea, let us ignore and defer correction of and minimize those problems entirely until the day Saudi Arabia is just perfectly hunky dory with, say, a public, naked musical re-imagining the life of Mohammed as a bedroom farce… And Jessica Ahlquist and the atheist scouts, you’ll all just have to wait ’til then.’

(/And yes, that is meant, in case anyone’s missing it, as parody. But y’know how it is about a joke already killed dead, anyway.)

Perhaps PZ SHOULD STICK TO ARCANE ARTICLES ON FISH GILLS INSTEAD OF STEPPING OUT OF THE GROVES OF ACADEMIA AND TURNING INTO A LIBERAL LEFTARD APOLOGIST PAT CONDELLS COMMENTS WERENT RACIST DIFFICULT TO TAKE IN I KNOW BUT ISLAM ISNT A RACE .HE MENTIONS PAKISTAN AS A REPRESSIVE PRIMITIVE COUNTRY IN TERMS OF ITS ADHERENCE TO THE SUPREMACIST FASCIST RANTINGS OF A 6TH CENTURY WARLORD WHERE CITIZENS CAN BE IMPRISONED OR KILLED FOR BLASPHEMY HE DIDNT MENTION BROWN PEOPLE YOU DID.HIS COMMENTS WERE AIMED AT OUR HOLIER THAN THOU CHATTERING ELITE WHO ARE VOCAL ON EVERYTHING FAINTLY MISOGYNISTIC BUT SILENT ON ISLAM AND CLASS ANY NEGATIVE COMMENTS AS ISLAMOPHOBIC. ALSO BEFORE BERATING THE EDL I SUGGEST YOU READ THEIR MISSION STATEMENT THEY WERE FORMED HORROR OF HORRORS IN THE MAIN BY WORKING CLASS WHITE MEN IN RESPONSE TO THE RISE OF RADICAL ISLAM IN TOWNS LIKE LUTON WHEN THE FAWNING LIBERAL COMPLACENIKS IN GOVERNMENT IGNORED THEIR CONCERNS LABELLING THEM RIGHT WING RACISTS AND ALLOWING THE ISLAMOFASCITS FREE REIGN TO SPREAD THEIR SALAFI INSPIRED BILE THROUGH LOCAL MOSQUES UNHAMPERED.THE EDL IS OPEN TO ALL RACE COLOUR AND CREEDS WHO SHARE CONCERNS ABOUT RADICAL ISLAM AND THAT INCLUDES MUSLIMS WHO DESIRE REFORM.I SUSPECT THEY KNOW MORE ABOUT THE REALITY OF THE TRUE DEPTH OF THE PROBLEM THAN A HIGH BROW AMERICAN COSSETED ACADEMIC STICK TO ONCOGENESAND FISH GILLS PZ ITS WHAT YOU KNOW ABOUT.

@pod22 – You’re joking, right? I’ll point out once again, race is socially constructed. All it takes to be racist is to believe that your group is inherently superior to others. The others need not be a “race” by your, or anyone else’s standards. The “race” in “racism” is properly seen as the race of the racist, not of the victim. And it’s still socially constructed. That’s why it used to be only English, only Germans, only Americans of English ancestry that had been here a sufficient number of generations, but now constitutes “western civilization”.

HALP HALP EEEVIL MOOSLEMS HAVE JAMMED MY CAPS LOCK ON STOP PLEASE SEND REINFORCEMENTS STOP OR MAYBE A BUTTERKNIFE TO UNSTICK IT OR SOMETHING STOP AND ANY PUNCTUATION YOURE NOT CURRENTLY USING ACTUALLY IF YOU DONT MIND TERRIBLY STOP THANKS AWFULLY STOP.

Also, on the whole Pat Condell issue.. I know this may not be a place he’s really gonna be viewed positively, but the YouTuber Richard “The Dick” Coughlan, who is (like Pat used to be) an atheist standup comedian has been debunking Pat’s bad statistics, bad facts, bad logic and bad morality for the past few years pretty consistently. Coughlan is the reason I started thinking about things people like Pat (and Thunderh00f and others) were saying more critically, and essentially helped me get rid of the whole “this dude is an amazing atheist hero” mentality. Shit I even disagree with PZ now and then ;)!

So, just saying – there’ve been other atheists calling out this bloke’s nonsense for a long time now (a quick search for Condell on FTB shows mentions only so late as Aug 13), and if you want some good debunkings of Pat’s nonsense, I’d recommend Coughlan (as well as his videos on islamophobia and especially Ayaan Hirsi Ali). Again, I know a lot of his brutal humour may not be appreciated here, but I’ve always had the feeling he was one of the atheists I could to be on the “don’t be a Dick” side of the atheist movement.

A lot of people either misunderstood or misread what I said in post #25 (e.g. I said hundreds OR thousands, not hundreds OF thousands).

The misunderstanding may be partly my fault, as I didn’t express my point as thoroughly as I could (or suitably for Americans who may not be so familiar with British political culture).

However, I did make it clear that it was right to investigate claims of sexual harrassment or assault by celebrities. I did not imply that those were not serious cases, and I certainly don’t wish to defend Jimmy Saville in any way. I was drawing a comparison with the way those cases (some of which were very old and therefore presumably hard to investigate) were being aggressively prosecuted, whereas there has never been a single prosecution for FGM, which is certainly a worse crime than some of those that the celebrities have been accused of.

Over the past couple of decades, British political culture, which is dominated by the media as well as the politicians, has moved progressively towards establishing a truly equal society. This is a GOOD thing. Attitudes with respect to race, gender and sexuality are far more tolerant, and almost everyone bends over backwards to try and establish equality across these issues. The change has been incredible. But there is one notable blind spot, and that is towards the rights of women of African or Asian descent who are unfortunate enough to be born into the Islamic culture, or indeed some other strongly religious cultures.

There is no way that if it were alleged that many white girls were being mutilated under the auspices of some group or movement, there wouldn’t be a huge uproar, a thorough investigation, and prosecutions. Nobody in the media, parliament, police, prosecution service would stand for it. Nobody would be sensitive to the colour of the victims’ parents, or their religion. If there were just a single case of a white girl being held down and mutilated it would be the headline news story for weeks. Allegations of hundreds OR thousands of girls of African or Asian descent being mutilated in that way only make the occasional few paragraphs on the inside pages.

I’m only concerned on this issue with the protection of girls and women from abuse. They all deserve equal protection, regardless of their race or religion. And women of certain ethnic and religious backgrounds are not receiving that protection. Their plight is being ignored by the organisations that I mentioned. So there’s your “racist”.

ALSO BEFORE BERATING THE EDL I SUGGEST YOU READ THEIR MISSION STATEMENT THEY WERE FORMED HORROR OF HORRORS IN THE MAIN BY WORKING CLASS WHITE MEN IN RESPONSE TO THE RISE OF RADICAL ISLAM IN TOWNS LIKE LUTON

pod.. go watch Coughlan’s EDL playlist. He’s working class British too. And he’s proof that the EDL is doing it wrong.

(1) In order to prosecute a crime like FGM, someone has to make a complaint. That is, someone has to actually examine the girl or woman and demonstrate that it was performed.
(2) If she’s an adult, then you have to get her to say that she didn’t consent to it.
(3) Given the social status of FGM amongst the communities that practice it, an adult woman is likely to be of the opinion that while FGM sucks, it is necessary. She may also believe that more women are subjected than actually are: she may think she’s typical.
(4) Social isolation from the mainstream of the rest of the country tends to exacerbate (3).
(5) Racist rhetoric or anti-immigrant rhetoric in general tends to exacerbate social isolation and tendencies for immigrant groups to turn to social customs they might otherwise willingly abandon as solace/proof of “belonging.”

Now, as for this:

If there were just a single case of a white girl being held down and mutilated it would be the headline news story for weeks. Allegations of hundreds OR thousands of girls of African or Asian descent being mutilated in that way only make the occasional few paragraphs on the inside pages.

You don’t think racist notions about what happens to African and Asian girls not “mattering” because they’re black/brown/one of THOSE people/from one of THOSE cultures/religions is part of why abuse of such girls doesn’t make headlines?

Oh, and if the person being subjected to FGM is a girl, then:
(1) Someone has to be able to examine her.
(2) Which means someone has to be trusted by her parents enough for them to allow her to be examined, or the examination must be forced.
(3) Parents feeling isolated from society and that they’re being discriminated against are unlikely to consent to their child being examined by someone who is an outsider.
(4) Racist anti-immigrant rhetoric tends to exacerbate social isolation.

Pat Condell is but one example (I can think of others, but won’t name drop) of what happens when someone becomes deluded by their own success. They forget how they became famous – being insightful, humourous or interesting – and start thinking anything they say will go down the same way. Ego will do that to you.

Attitudes with respect to race, gender and sexuality are far more tolerant, and almost everyone bends over backwards to try and establishto appear to want to promote equality across these issues

Fixed that for you. THAT (if anything) is the “bad” side of the Politically Correct mentality that makes sense. Its original meaning: politically correct behaviour is the behaviour of a politician, who has to try not to annoy, offend or alienate constituents or the public. That is actually quite understandable. A public representative is the representative of extremists, minorities, everyone alike – their personal beliefs shouldn’t be in the way of their public service. Similar behaviour can be seen in journalists, who are trying to be impartial: moderating political discussions for instance, the moderator must try to make sure other politicians arent’ misrepresented, that ideas are expressed clearly, etc.

I see this every day in my country: talk about women’s rights, gay rights, egalitarianism – from politicians and journalists – is very often just lip-service. Little is done to remedy the problems.

So please people: (and Pat especially) don’t use PC as an insult unless you consider that a person is being a hypocrite, is using language as lip-service to an idea instead of actually holding that position.
The lefty-liberal scum you’re complaining about aren’t being PC. They actually really think that muslims, women and minorities should be treated as human beings, and that your language and bigotry is disgusting.

And this racist anti-immigrant rhetoric is essentially implying “lets send the police into all muslim households and check all young girls vulvas to see if they’ve been mutliated so we can arrest their parents”.

ALSO BEFORE BERATING THE EDL I SUGGEST YOU READ THEIR MISSION STATEMENT THEY WERE FORMED HORROR OF HORRORS IN THE MAIN BY WORKING CLASS WHITE MEN IN RESPONSE TO THE RISE OF RADICAL ISLAM IN TOWNS LIKE LUTON WHEN THE FAWNING LIBERAL COMPLACENIKS IN GOVERNMENT IGNORED THEIR CONCERNS LABELLING THEM RIGHT WING RACISTS

THE KKK WERE FORMED BY HORROR OF HORRORS WORKING CLASS DOUCHEBAGS IN RESPONSE TO THE RISE OF BLACKS DARING TO EXIST IN THEIR BREATHING SPACE AND THREATENING TO RAPE TEH WOMENZ IN THEIR FERVID LITTLE DREAMS!!!! HOW DOES THAT POSSIBLY MAKE THEM RACIST BECAUSE AS WE KNOW THE SOUTH ISN’T A RACE IT’S A REGION!!!
Your point?

I’ve absolutely no idea where the accusations that I am “racist” or “anti-immigrant” come from. I haven’t made any racist comment or expressed any anti-immigration sentiment in either of my previous posts. Moreover, I don’t believe I have said anything to indicate that I might not be an immigrant myself! All I have done is express a concern for the welfare of women and children.

@ Esteleth, statistically significant to p ≤ 0.001

I understand the difficulties of establishing a case for prosecution for FGM. But given the alleged scale of the crime, and the fact that it has been going on for years – and is still ongoing – it’s impossible to accept that the criminal justice system and social services could not have prosecuted at least one case by now if they took the matter as seriously as other cases of sexual crimes against women or children.

Furthermore, far more could have been done by politicians and the media to highlight the problem and to educate people out of committing this crime, just as they have on other crimes and abuses. They are mostly choosing to ignore crimes and abuses inflicted against Muslim women and girls, which is the point Pat Condell was making.

And women of certain ethnic and religious backgrounds are not receiving that protection

It does not seem to be a legal question in The UK, as the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003 and Scottish Prohibition of Female Genital Mutilation Act 2005 outlawed the procedure domestically, and made it an offence to arrange to have it performed outside the UK on British citizens or permanent residents. But there are no convictions, as it seems, except for a single surgeon who lost his license.
Estimates of the children at risk of undergoing the procedure in the UK vary from 7,000 to 21,000. So, where are the cases?

As far as I can see, there is an vivid discussion especially among African traditionalists which is similar to the circumcision debate, citing religious, cultural, and traditional values as legitimate reasons.
But of course, while circumcision does not (much) impede the sexual function of the penis, removal of the foremost branch of the female clitoris (which is by far bigger than you may think) greatly diminishes sexual experience. So it’s not an inconsequential thing like tattooing or prolonging one’s earlobes.
Interesting enough, some supporters point to, again, alleged “thousands” of gender-correcting operations performed on children with genital irregularities, which are regarded legal.
Not a good argument, of course, as it compares the natural state of a woman to a birth defect, but it has a true core to it. The idea that parents can legally make such decisions is abominable.

I’ve absolutely no idea where the accusations that I am “racist” or “anti-immigrant” come from.

But you made the highly erronious and absurd statement, that your particular list of UK entities are feminist and PC. Bullshit. They are not. And insomuch as they have been feminist, this has not made them less critical of islamic practices (including FGM or domestic violence). In fact, if they had been more feminist, surely you would agree that they would have been more strongly against FGM or other abusive Islamic practices which hurt women..

All I have done is express a concern for the welfare of women and children.
No, what you have done is blame feminism for the lack of concern for the welfare of women and children. And that is bullshit.

I regret that I don’t follow Pharyngula as closely as I might, so I didn’t spot the point at which Condell’s bileous rants ceased to be welcome here. I’m happy to see this change, though I admit it is some time since I have seen any reference to him here at all.

I presume this change is fall-out from the great rise of the sleaze brigade within organised secularism.

@Tony #97 I guess Condell has not been a topic here much (only recently). It’s more been a case of “this is blogosphere, YouTube is all full of shit”. Same with Thunderf00t – it took ages for poeple here to aknowledge his existence and when they(he/them?) finally did, it was already past the phase where others had already noticed his dickishness (read the whole TF vs feminism assholery).

It’s not a “change” it’s just the blog part of the atheist community hasn’t been connected with the YouTube/vlog part as far as content-creators are concerned (fans have migrated, experienced both), and all attempts at joining the two have been either outside both media (Matt D.) or have failed in a big way. So that’s why it took PZ so long to say “Condell is a racist asshole”.

@Daz: Coughlan uses the here the oft-discussed c-word, as the working-class Brits use it: just meaning any (usually male) person. I’m originally Scots-born, with an English Dad, but we were middle-class, and I was a child there so I never got into this – I don’t use that word, but I understand the associations and I think I understand the US rejection of it as a gendered slur.

I’m no expert on this, but I think there’s a huge difference between US/UK public aknowledgement of the lower-class, of their (in parts our for me) language, values, etc. When I talk to people in my country (CZ), I always think it’s important to distinguish language use from bigotry. There are people who will use horrible language, but who are able to aknowledge the basic humanity of everyone, while my PhD/PhDr educated, nice-talking brothers are generally racist libertarians.

But if you want to see what the EDL is, and what Condell has supported in the past, Coughlan’s the best resource I’ve come across (and there are a number of other atheist YT channels who’ve been on Condell’s ass for ages.)

That’s the least of their mess-ups. You haven’t heard about the muslamic ray-guns, nor do you know of their electrons starting. Oh, and like their favourite argument against Islam, among their founders is a (convicted) pedophile.

“In fact, if they had been more feminist, surely you would agree that they would have been more strongly against FGM or other abusive Islamic practices which hurt women..”

Yes, exactly. I would agree that would make them more feminist. And that would be a good thing. I am not against feminism.

“No, what you have done is blame feminism for the lack of concern for the welfare of women and children. And that is bullshit.”

I agree that it would be bullshit if I had blamed feminism for the lack of concern for the welfare of women and children. But I haven’t blamed feminism for a lack of concern for the welfare of women and children because that would be a contradiction in terms. I have blamed organisations that purport to support women’s rights for equality (i.e. that purport to be supporters of feminism), and do so in many instances, yet which make an exception in cases where women are victims of inequality due to the imposition of Islamism (and some other religious cultures).

I believe that every British child should be granted the same equality and protection under the law, and that the government and criminal justice system should serve them to an equal extent. They should be granted this irrespective of their gender, race, place of birth, or the religion of their parents. I do not believe this is the case at present.

So you retract your previous statement (quoted below) which seemed to be posted as a rebuttal to PZ’s point (and the general-knowledge point), that feminism does not ignore the problems of muslim women and that complaining that someone is PC is usually just an ad-hominem which ignores people’s actual points.

PZ, here are some examples of champions of feminism and political correctness who prefer to ignore
atrocities committed by Islam:

So you actually meant to say

PZ I would like to point to some groups which pretend to be champions of feminism and political correctness, but actually aren’t, and this may lead some people to think that actual feminists and actual minority-aknowledging people are just as bad at reacting to Islamic violence against women as these groups. I’m trying to explain why people like Pat Condell (and his PC brigade) would make this connection.

So please people: (and Pat especially) don’t use PC as an insult unless you consider that a person is being a hypocrite, is using language as lip-service to an idea instead of actually holding that position.
The lefty-liberal scum you’re complaining about aren’t being PC. They actually really think that muslims, women and minorities should be treated as human beings, and that your language and bigotry is disgusting.

But that’s the thing: they think they’re doing exactly that. They literally can’t conceive of someone of their ethnic and social background genuinely supporting the rights of all people.

So wait, is the racist sexist fuckhead whose first salvo was repeating neo-fascist talking points, defending child molesters as innocent victims of a vile press in cohoots with all muslims everywhere to butcher children because of feminism…

Trying to pretend like a good faith arguer who is just trying to thread through a super nuanced viewpoint that is not at all an attempt to backtrack his authoritarian hate speech so that he could try and sell the version sold to those who want to be viewed as “intellectual” racists?

Have fun living a life of excess privilege blaming those with less for the way those more powerful than you have fucked you over, because you are too much of a coward to punch up. You only have to blame yourself for how shit never seems to get better and no one seems to view you anything other than a fucked up asshole.

because “the majority” is not racist at all, and anyway, what the majority sez is always true too, even if that majority is likely really only a majority in one’s own imagination.

– – – – – –

PZ, here are some examples of champions of feminism and political correctness who prefer to ignore atrocities committed by Islam:

The BBC
The entire British Press
The British Parliament
The British Police
The British Crown Prosecution Service

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
oh yeah, the British Parliament, that bastion of feminism HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

There is no way that if it were alleged that many white girls were being mutilated under the auspices of some group or movement, there wouldn’t be a huge uproar

because Britain is magical and doesn’t have rape culture and white-victim rape cases are never swept under the carpet.

Are you from a parallel universe or something?

I’m only concerned on this issue with the protection of girls and women from abuse. They all deserve equal protection, regardless of their race or religion. And women of certain ethnic and religious backgrounds are not receiving that protection. Their plight is being ignored by the organisations that I mentioned. So there’s your “racist”.

none of the organizations are feminist. most of them consider rape to be somehow the victim’s fault. Yes, even when the victim is white. These institutions in britain don’t give a flying fuck about women in general, and because they’re racist, they give less of a fuck about minority women. They are not progressive, and they’re not feminist. you have no point.

ALSO BEFORE BERATING THE EDL I SUGGEST YOU READ THEIR MISSION STATEMENT THEY WERE FORMED HORROR OF HORRORS IN THE MAIN BY WORKING CLASS WHITE MEN IN RESPONSE TO THE RISE OF RADICAL ISLAM IN TOWNS LIKE LUTON

There is something deeply wrong with you if you believe that feminism and Islam are friendly allies.

It’s part of the right-wing delusion that all their enemies are the same. Liberals are communists are Nazis are Islamists.

it’s also part of them not understanding that it’s possible to be against a belief-system without also wanting to bomb/lock up/deport/isolate or otherwise harm the populations affected by that belief-system.

Pat Condell now PZ? You have slipped so far into this denial of reality it really is pathetic and painful to watch. Don’t get me wrong I think you deserve every bit of disrespect and mocking you get, it’s still tough to stomach seeing a guy undermine himself to such an extreme. We thought the bible contradicted itself, it has nothing on you. You condemn others for what you have done yourself time and time again. Do you think people are too dumb to figure it out or are you too stupid to realize what a moron you make yourself look like? The way you ignorantly mock others as if they were the ones who don’t get it only magnifies the pity others feel for you. Is that your goal? To have others feel pity towards you?
You are losing respect daily PZ and if you could pull your fat head out of your ass for a minute you would see that it is not because you are the only one who gets it, it is because you are too damn dumb to even realize you don’t get it. You are the worst kind of a dope PZ, you are the idiot who knows it all. Go ahead and ignore my words PZ it really makes no difference at this point. You have assured yourself a place in history as the man who allowed his own ego to devour his credibility and dignity as the crowd watched. Fade away PZ, you are no longer needed, no longer wanted.
To the ‘horde’- Fuck off, you neither scare nor intimidate, outside this bubble you are a joke. All someone has to do is trigger you weak minded dolts and you are done, big threat. Waddle around here and babble to yourselves all you like because outside of here you are nothing but fodder. That is the reality of it and no amount of snark can change it but it is fun to watch you pretend it can. Caine get some fucking therapy already your shit personality is a handicap you can not overcome on your own.

Seriously? Is this the best Condell fans can do? Pete Fraud’s last message is just the icing on the cake, but it typifies the type of arguments they have all made, empty, angry screeds that contain no arguments, no evidence, nothing. They refute nothing, they ignore what has been said and continue on their preprogrammed path.

I know they will never seen it in themselves, but god they are similar to godbots, creationists and that ilk.

Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaidensays

Avoid assigning responsibility to a mental disability for words, ideas, or behaviors you don’t like. Everyone is responsible for their own actions, dis/ability notwithstanding. No one is able to diagnose from internet comments.

Don’t get me wrong I think you deserve every bit of disrespect and mocking you get, it’s still tough to stomach seeing a guy undermine himself to such an extreme.

That’s like a double dose of irony right there.

You condemn others for what you have done yourself time and time again. Do you think people are too dumb to figure it out or are you too stupid to realize what a moron you make yourself look like? The way you ignorantly mock others as if they were the ones who don’t get it only magnifies the pity others feel for you….You are losing respect daily PZ and if you could pull your fat head out of your ass for a minute you would see that it is not because you are the only one who gets it, it is because you are too damn dumb to even realize you don’t get it. You are the worst kind of a dope PZ, you are the idiot who knows it all.

I love the lack of specifics. I thrive on them. It brings me sustenance and joy.

Go ahead and ignore my words PZ it really makes no difference at this point.

Yes PZ. Ignore the vast amounts of information that wise pete fraud has bestowed upon this thread! Ignore it AT YOUR PERIL!

To the ‘horde’- Fuck off, you neither scare nor intimidate, outside this bubble you are a joke.

Who are you trying to convince? Because if it’s us, you’re both doing a poor job and completely mistaken in believing that we give a fuck.

All someone has to do is trigger you weak minded dolts and you are done, big threat.

Oh wow. What do you mean by “trigger” exactly? And “done”? Because if it means what you think you want it to, you are a much more horrible human being than I initially thought.

Caine get some fucking therapy already your shit personality is a handicap you can not overcome on your own.

Thanks for the ableism. You are a swell person, ain’t ya? Go fuck yourself.

Well thanks, Pete. I’m glad you commented. I mean, where would we be without armies of self-aggrandizing basement dwellers to take every available opportunity to fully demonstrate what repulsive specimens of humanity they can be?

Oh, that’s right: in a better world.

Sometimes I struggle over whether I’m doing the right thing, or whether I’m just an ignorant asshole. I think it’s constructive to reflect on these things and to be self-critical. But then people like Pete come along and make it way too easy for me. It’s as if some see decency as a rallying cry to be a massive piece of shit. Thanks for answering that call, Petey.

I noticed not one of Pat Condell’s fans were willing to explain why Mr. Condell feared that 2 Million Syrians were about to invade Sweden when in reality just 8000 asylum seekers were given protection.

I assume it’s down to reality. It’s easier to argue against feminists against cold hard reality of statements.

@115 – I understand you don’t like PZ Myers (Frankly, his squid love is disturbing to say the least) but do you have any points to support Pat Condell or are you just going to upend the table, scream “ENOUGH IS ENOUGH” and then yell at us?

No?

I think we should criticise Islam. I think we should criticise Islam properly without relying on fallacies, lies and the tired screech of racists. We are better than that.

Pat is a symptom of a lack of diversity within atheism. No one called him out before (In fact I have been telling people precisely this for nearly 3 years of my blogging. The thing is few people listen). His support for the EDL was the icing on the cake.

The EDL may not be racist but from where I am sat they seem to be attacking a lot of people who look like me and screaming a lot of insults at me that are based on race.

Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaidensays

when every expert on racism in the UK says they’re racist, when racists are their supporters, members, and friends, and when they engage in deceptive immigrant baiting and racialized rants on English supremacy, one would have to be more optimistic than Wile E. Coyote running off the edge of a cliff to believe that this is all some very, very non-racist piece of performance art or other totally-not-actually-racist twist on reality.

No one called him out before (In fact I have been telling people precisely this for nearly 3 years of my blogging. The thing is few people listen).

Um, as I’ve pointed out before, various people *have* been calling out Pat Condell on his BS. Because he’s a YouTuber, people respond to him by creating reply videos on the same platform, or on twitter. It’s the disparity between the blogging and the vlogging “communities” (while readers/viewers span both), and the fact that no one on FTB has noticed him that makes it seem as if no one called him out before.

If you took the time to check you’d see plenty of response/debunking videos concerning Pat’s racism in the past.

When I claimed that the institutions I mentioned were “champions of feminism and political correctness” I did not mean they were purely dedicated to those issues, or that they were perfect exponents of those issues. I meant that, as the heart of the British political establishment, they have evolved over recent years to become intolerant of inequality and bigotry and helped drive society to accept those principles (and I think that is absolutely right).

Of course, there are individuals and groups within those organisations and general society that might not believe in equal rights for women, or homosexuals, for example, but the overwhelming political and social movement over recent years has been in the right direction towards establishing equal rights.

“no you just appear to have no fucking clue what [feminism] is.”

My definition would agree entirely with Wikipedia’s, which is:

Feminism is a collection of movements and ideologies aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights for women.

All the organisations that I mentioned have worked (and are still working – by no means perfectly, I agree) towards driving society towards a feminism as defined above. And I fully support that.

But I repeat, when it comes to religion, and Islam in particular, they are collectively blind to the rights of women – even when young girls are being subject to the most horrific act of genital mutilation.

I am not a supporter of UKIP, and I think Godfrey Bloom is a buffoon unfit for political office, but how do you square the way BBC reporters and other journalists flew their feminist colours by hounding him this week for a silly comment about “sluts”, yet they do nothing remotely on the same scale towards those responsible for the imposition of Sharia Law, forced marriage, and genital mutilation on some women in Britain?

Of course, there are individuals and groups within those organisations and general society that might not believe in equal rights for women, or homosexuals, for example, but the overwhelming political and social movement over recent years has been in the right direction towards establishing equal rights.

Spell it correctly, homosekshewels, or just drop the word favored by the anti-queer crowd and use the language embraced by the actual group to which you refer. Gay men might work. LG might work. LGB might work, depending on what you want to say. Homosekshewels is either snark aimed at bigots or the language that bigots embrace. Why use it when you say you don’t embrace the bigots?

Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaidensays

But seriously, it never occured to me that the word homosexual would be problematic.. odd constructions such as “homosexualism” are of course linguistic vomit, but isn’t it more about how the word is used, than it being inherantly homophobic? I mean “gay” can be used as a insult as well as positively, thanks to its reclamation by gay men?

Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaidensays

It is more about how the word was used. And although it made me vomit when the press kept using “homosexual” long past when I thought it was clear the community didn’t embrace being called homosexual, I still held off directly criticizing the use on anything other than stylistic grounds. But people do pay attention to how communities name themselves. Perhaps they don’t do it as well and as carefully and as promptly as they should, but they do pay attention. Nowadays the theocratic right cling to “homosexual” on principle. The gay community, the lesbian community, the queer community, and trans communities have all stopped using it and most neutral sources have given it up, too. At this point in the gradual shift, the fact is that the preponderance of uses are in scientific literature (for what reason only cthulu knows), legal literature (when a judge or author wishes to signal theocratic/anti-queer bona fides while maintaining the plausible deniability of bias that would be lost with phrases that might come more naturally to them), religious rhetoric, and political rhetoric. In all of these save the scientific literature, it consistently signals a right wing, theocratic take on queer folk and their rights.

Given this environment, those people who are neutral or queer positive who continue to use “homosexual” place themselves at greater and greater risk of appearing to be blowing a dog whistle.

Therefore, to people who have signaled explicitly that they are queer neutral/queer positive, but still for whatever reason use “homosexual” unironically, I recommend dropping the word.

but how do you square the way BBC reporters and other journalists flew their feminist colours by hounding him this week for a silly comment about “sluts”, yet they do nothing remotely on the same scale towards those responsible for the imposition of Sharia Law, forced marriage, and genital mutilation on some women in Britain?

That’s a Fry & Laurie bit, isn’t it? Even if it isn’t, it’s clearly used ironically. You think the theocrats are in love with Fry? Not a chance. No, the risk here is signaling you’re on the side of the theocrats – or sending mixed messages if you *say* you aren’t, but use language that is increasingly restricted to them and odd bits of the scientific literature. However, if you ask your barkeep for two pints of the most homosexual beer available, I think it would be hard to interpret that as endorsing conservative theocracy.

It’s quite extraordinary how so many posters here seem intent on misrepresenting my argument. They are not arguing with me, they are arguing with themselves.

@ MJP #136

Thanks for your link to the Fallacy of Relative Privation, but I have never at any point suggested that it is wrong to investigate less serious cases of abuse while more serious cases are ignored. On the contrary, I have repeatedly expressed my support for feminism and investigating any case of abuse against women.

The point I keep making, and which most people choose to ignore in favour of such ridiculous things as complaining about the use of the word “homosexual”, is that very serious abuses are being committed against women under the auspices of certain religious cultures, particularly Islamic cultures, and these are not being tackled either at all or to the same degree as equivalent or less serious offences that are not committed under the auspices of religious culture.

I’m happy to discuss the reasons for this with anyone, because it is a very serious issue, but will no longer bother to respond to any silly or disingenuous attempts to divert the discussion.

very serious abuses are being committed against women under the auspices of certain religious cultures, particularly Islamic cultures, and these are not being tackled either at all or to the same degree as equivalent or less serious offences that are not committed under the auspices of religious culture.

With regard to FGM, parliament could bring the Home Office ministers, the police and the CPS to public hearings to explain why, when there has been widespread allegations of FGM for years, not a single case has been prosecuted, and why there is no apparent serious drive to fully investigate and report on the issue.

The BBC and other media organisations could broadcast and report those hearings, and demand action, explanations, sackings, etc.

Parliament and the media did all the above with allegations of sexual harrassment and assault committed by people working for the BBC. They also did the same for allegations of phone tapping by media organisations a couple of years ago – surely a far less serious crime than mutilating children’s genitals. Again, I emphasise, I am not claiming it wasn’t right to investigate those other issues with the zealotry that they did. I just don’t understand why there isn’t a political and media campaign on at least the same scale with regard to the atrocity of FGM.

Similarly, why is it not deemed more scandalous in Britain that some women are subject to Sharia Law than that some people had their phones tapped?

Yes, there has been some media coverage of serious abuses of women under Islam and other religious cultures, but nowhere near on the same scale as the other issues I have given that are often less serious offences.

I have never heard anyone in the British media getting irate with any politician or member of the criminal justice system or health/social services for their failures with regard to combating FGM.

Yet, as I said before, when Godfrey Bloom (whom I have no personal respect for) made a sexist comment, he was immediately hounded by irrate members of the media and other politicians (even within his own party). I don’t understand this discrepancy. How can a single sexist comment by one man be deemed to be more serious and worthy of media headlines and political outrage than many many cases of physical and psychological sexual abuse?

It’s quite extraordinary how so many posters here seem intent on misrepresenting my argument. They are not arguing with me, they are arguing with themselves.

You give arguments. They get refuted. You put your fingers in your ears and are intended on not listening. Sure about who is arguing with themselves?

I have never at any point suggested that it is wrong to investigate less serious cases of abuse while more serious cases are ignored

You @128

but how do you square the way BBC reporters and other journalists flew their feminist colours by hounding him this week for a silly comment about “sluts”, yet they do nothing remotely on the same scale towards those responsible for the imposition of Sharia Law, forced marriage, and genital mutilation on some women in Britain

Yes, there has been some media coverage of serious abuses of women under Islam and other religious cultures, but nowhere near on the same scale as the other issues I have given that are often less serious offences.

I’m curious. Why could you not just say “under some religious cultures”? That you seek to highlight the easy target of brown people Muslims seems, to me, rather… problematic.

FWIW, when I googled for “UK prosecutions for female genital mutilation” — which, interestingly, autocompleted before I finished typing the second word (I’m not sure if that’s dismaying or awesome)— the first hits on the page were:

The likelihood of the first prosecution in the UK for female genital mutilation is higher than ever before, the director of public prosecutions says.

The Crown Prosecution Service was now considering whether to bring charges in five cases.

While there have been 100 convictions in France, there has not been a successful UK prosecution since criminalisation 28 years ago.

But a new strategy was helping to track down those responsible, the DPP said.

Mr Starmer said that very few victims of the crime come forward, and those that do are often “very unwilling” to give evidence.

It was estimated in 2007 to have affected 66,000 women in England and Wales.

In the past 12 months, police have pursued a number of leads using a new “intelligence-led” approach, without success.

But Mr Starmer said: “I think a prosecution is much closer now than it’s been at any stage since this was made a criminal offence in this country.

The Crown Prosecution Service is currently reviewing original decisions not to bring charges in four female genital mutilation cases and is also considering whether there is enough evidence to prosecute in another, more recent, case.

Mr Starmer added: “I think it is wrong to say we’ve failed when we’ve looked at the problem.

“We have devised a strategy, and we have now got the intelligence-led operations that are bringing us very close to a prosecution.

“I do not think that’s a failure – that is trying to grapple with a difficult problem. If it was easy there would have been a prosecution.”

Simonnorwich, you explicitly linked lack of prosecution to the influence of feminism on the basis of fuck all research and even less logic as far as I can tell, then later claimed that feminism is a good thing. This is inconsistent, to say the least. Pick one thing and stick to it: either that feminism is a bad thing, while explaining clearly why you think so — that’s clearly, mind you, meaning in a way that makes sense to someone who isn’t you, don’t expect us to see through your merely physical shell to the clear golden light of reason within — or that it’s good that there is a rising tide of feminism in this country (the UK, that is), and that feminism per se has nothing to do with FGM not being prosecuted as valiantly as we might hope.

There is a useful discussion to be had about this, but I for one don’t intend to have it with you until you pick the straw out of your hair and go and do at least some simple research on the topic. Now go away before I feel obligated to mock you.

Yes, there has been some media coverage of serious abuses of women under Islam and other religious cultures, but nowhere near on the same scale as the other issues I have given that are often less serious offences.

So your argument is that while you acknowledge that the media has drawn attention to abuses of women including FGM and that the government has taken action, neither has done enough to satisfy you? What would it take to make you feel that they were doing enough? What policies would you like to see implemented?

This is the last post I will make on this issue, because I don’t have time to deal with so many wasters who either deliberately or stupidly fail to understand what I’m saying. I’ve fallen for that trick before and I won’t do so again.

Here are some further clarifications of my points (well, I’m just repeating myself really, because people don’t read what I’ve said) that I leave you to ponder, if you so wish:

– I am NOT attacking genuine feminism. I support feminism. I am arguing that some of those who often purport to be champions of feminist issues do not do so proportionally when abuses are committed under Islam and some other religious cultures. I single out Islam in this case because I consider it the prevalent example of various types of abuses against women. I mention “other religious cultures” to show that I realise it is a more widespread and complex problem of deference to religion in general. (In other debates, I have made a very similar point about the way the government, media and criminal justice system was blind to the seriousness of child rape and other atrocities within the Catholic Church, but I think the reluctance to face up to the problems within Islam is even more acute.)

– When I say that there was a far bigger fuss about sexual harrassment and abuse at the BBC than there has been about FGM, for example, that does NOT mean that I think it was wrong to tackle that problem at the BBC. I think it was absolutely right to tackle the problem at the BBC. I was demonstrating how the media, government, etc, ARE willing to support feminist causes in some areas, but not to nearly the same extent in areas related to Islam, even when the crimes can be more horrific and on a greater scale. I believe this is exactly the point Pat Condell was making (although whether he was talking about specific “feminist” individuals or organisations I don’t know).

– I have never claimed that FGM is not being investigated or reported on at all. Just that it is not being dealt with as seriously as some equal or lesser crimes not committed under the auspices of Islam.

– I have explained that what I expect to see from media, government, police, etc is a resolve to tackle issues like FGM with AT LEAST the same determination and publicity that they tackled the issue of sexual offences at the BBC. As I said, that would include public hearings, strong questioning of those who should be tackling the issue, wall-to-wall media coverage, etc.

simonnorwich #141, actually if you knew anything about it there was a recent meeting between The Home Office, The Crown Prosecution Service, appropriate police departments as well as other organisations fighting against FGM, to see what more could be done. Here’s a link to a BBC Newsnight report from last year, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-18931460 this was the first of a two part report on Newsnight. Similarly, this year alone there have been at least 8 reports on the subject on the BBC TV channels, though not all to do with the UK. Only a couple of weeks ago, 03/09/2013, Newsnight had another report followed by a discussion with police/CPS involved in trying to target FGM in the UK and the difficulties with gathering evidence.

Search the BBC site using just the term FGM and you get 18 results, use the full phrase and, between all the BBC news sites, you get 241 results and the most recent, 06/09/2013, is one about how close the CPS is to prosecution. I have also seen similar articles in plenty of the UK’s print media.

Admittedly, much more needs doing, but the difficulty is that when isolated communities feel even more isolated by racist tropes, as posited by idiots like Condell, it is very difficult for the authorities to get people from these communities to trust them and come forward. The truth is that people like Condell only go on about FGM, trying to sound as if they are the saviours of Muslim women, when IMO they don’t really give a damn except inasmuch as it can be used to attack Muslims in general.

Goodbye, any pretense of credibility. I stopped reading at “genuine feminism.” This is the kind of statement that can only be made by someone who hasn’t read a lick of feminism in his whole life. There is no “genuine feminism” or one true feminism because it is a huge and multi-faceted movement/field of inquiry that has different principles, conditions, and objectives from place to place and from age to age. If you’re wondering why no one is taking you seriously, you could begin by A) actually knowing what you’re talking about and B) not making it so obvious that you don’t know what you’re talking about.

Could have fooled me. But then, what drivel you post doesn’t seem to be rationally filtered by anything.

feminist issues do not do so proportionally when abuses are committed under Islam and some other religious cultures.

Evidence presented to support your claim zero. Claim dismissed.

I have never claimed that FGM is not being investigated or reported on at all. Just that it is not being dealt with as seriously as some equal or lesser crimes not committed under the auspices of Islam.

More unevidenced claims, which can be dismissed as your ignorance, bigotry, and presuppositions.

Your problem is you came to an evidence based argument with nothing but presuppositions, bigotry, and ignorance. You ignored real evidence. No wonder you feel nobody is listening to your uneducated and unevidenced rants. They don’t make sense.

If anyone ever asks whats wrong with Pharyngula and the horde, I’ll point them to simonnorwichs comments and the responses on this thread.

As far as I can see, all he omitted from his initial comment was the word “allegedly” when describing the BBC et al. as feminist.

After that its like watching Bill Hicks description of the american army in the first gulf war. To paraphrase:

SN: I make comment
FTB: We missunderstand
SN: I edit
FTB: We say “So what you still made comment?”
SN: I explain more fully
FTB: We ignore (except for that one word)
SN: I prostrate my self in order to show that I actually agree with you.
FTB: Too little, too late. Booommm!!!

You make a fine stab at assuming trollish bad faith on the part of pretty much everyone.

For the record I agree with the ethos of this blog, and the stance that PZ (and the horde) are taking for equality, but it would be really great if there was a way of agreeing with you that wasn’t such hard work.

There seems to be only one subject here, and as multi-facetted as it purports to be (Jason) there seems to be very little leeway in how you express it.

It must be wonderful to have a cause and set of ideals that is so popular and widespread that you can afford to reject supporters for their vocabulary rather than their intentions.

As far as I can see, all he omitted from his initial comment was the word “allegedly” when describing the BBC et al. as feminist.

Besides telling porkies and claiming he was right, he presented no evidence to back up any of his claims. And if you look at the responses, they were for him to clarify, with evidence, what he was claiming. Which he failed to do repeatedly. Also the responses presented evidence that he was wrong. At the end, we still had to take his unsupported word for everything he claimed.

The issue was the ban was put in place without any method of enforcing the ban. Doctors have doctor/patient confidentiality and could not void them for this. With new rules doctors can target at risk children and educate and warn parents about the dangers and indeed have a proper method for the prosecution of such cases.

And if you think feminists are not against FGM then I am afraid you are rather blinded to it’s reality. And as I have said repeatedly. Islam AND Christianity are prone to this and so it is not a religious issue but one of culture from Africa that believes this as a vital part of growing old.

As far as I can see, all he omitted from his initial comment was the word “allegedly” when describing the BBC et al. as feminist.

Then you missed the parts about feminists! muslims! bad! with the BTW “genuine feminism” (codeword much?) is OK and he just really really cares about the poor abused women that feminists are ignoring. Perhaps down deep he actually does but it’s buried under a shitload of ignorant hateful crap.

The point of the post is to show the behavior of a racist anti-feminist within the atheist community who appropriates the pain and oppression of Muslim women to further his racist and anti-feminist points while very clearly not giving 2 shits about actual living Muslim women or their welfare. Yes, in societies like the UK and the US where whiteness and maleness are privileged, of course women of color are marginalized, violence against them institutionally ignored by those in power. Simonnorwich was berated here not because he said that Muslim women are marginalized, but because his arguments did exactly what the original post is criticizing. Namely: appropriating that marginalization for the purpose of criticizing feminists and those who work against racism against Mulsim people. Like Pat, simonnorwich makes extensive use of straw-feminists and straw-anti-racists.

I still can’t believe Pat unironically referred to the women he disagreed with as “girls” in that video. If he can’t avoid being flagrantly sexist in a 5 minute video railing against feminists, maybe he and the militant jihadis have something in common. Instead of soaking his camera in vituperative spittle about the evils of Islam, he should join them over a campfire and sing about the evils of progressive women.

As far as I can see, all he omitted from his initial comment was the word “allegedly” when describing the BBC et al. as feminist.

What about just being plain wrong? Simon says

But I repeat, when it comes to religion, and Islam in particular, they are collectively blind to the rights of women – even when young girls are being subject to the most horrific act of genital mutilation.

But posts 146 and 149 here give information on the BBC covering FGM, and what is being done to bring prosecutions. Simon is bringing feminism into the conversation when it is completely irrelevant. It’s just a lazy trope.

Joyousrevelation:
A great deal of time and effort could have been saved had you just said “you guys don’t tolerate dissent or disagreement”, as others with similar reading comprehension problems have uttered.

But posts 146 and 149 here give information on the BBC covering FGM, and what is being done to bring prosecutions.

I think one of the difficulties here is that simon *isn’t* “just plain wrong”; it’s totally true that in a society that greatly privileges men and white people, injustices against women of color will go mostly unnoticed. The problem with this is that he (and particularly Pat) are using that injustice as an excuse to broad-brush bash feminism and brown people and anti-racists.

Maybe you’re right and my reading comprehension is limited. But I’ve reread simonnorwichs comments _and_ clarifications and I still don’t see the issue (certainly not if read with the benefit of the doubt).

Theres a fair amount about, and I recommend @pakistaniatheist as a source for some of this information. The lack of any prosecutions is also evidence on its own.

WRT 149 , I see evidence that FGM gets mentioned on TV and discussed in government in the UK … I knew that. But are you saying that simonnorwichs concern over inaction on FGM from the british establishment should be set aside as a result of a few news reports and meetings?

Its obvious from the comments above that the very idea that the british establishment “gets” feminism is not related to the number of government meetings or news reports on the subject in the UK.

Then why expect anyone else to have their concerns over other subjects allayed by meetings and news reports?

I don’t think that you fail to tolerate dissent or disagreement entirely, but I do think that you fail to tolerate it outside very narrow parameters.

(PS for the record I used to like Pat, but hadn’t listened in years. I don’t think I ever will again).

You seem to be reading a different comment thread from everyone else. In this thread here, simonnorwich made one argument which was rebutted, and then simonnorwich made a somewhat different argument. When that argument was rebutted, simonnorwich castigated those who misunderstood that argument and then made yet another somewhat different argument. And so on. He was even presented with quotations from his mutually contradictory arguments highlighting the contradictions. Go ahead and scroll up a little and you’ll probably find them.

simonnorwich has a lot of trouble admitting when he’s wrong but the mere fact that he can’t admit when he’s wrong doesn’t mean he isn’t, in fact, quite wrong.

The problem with this is that he (and particularly Pat) are using that injustice as an excuse to broad-brush bash feminism and brown people and anti-racists.

Don’t mix metaphors! You *paint* with a broad brush, you don’t bash people with it! And don’t use a broom either – that’s for sweeping generalisations and under-carpetry. Next time you can be pretty sure that it’s a stick that’s been used to bash feminism. Or a gentleman’s cane.

WRT your link, while Al Bandar’s attacks on Nahla Mahmoud are disgusting, it is by no means clear they break any law. What offense do you think he should be charged with, and with regard to exactly which words of his?

WRT simonnorwich, it has been explained to him why prosecutions for FGM are difficult to bring; and I don’t think anyone but you believes his concern for the victims is genuine, any more than Pat Condell’s is.

I don’t think that you fail to tolerate dissent or disagreement entirely, but I do think that you fail to tolerate it outside very narrow parameters.

You seem to have some difficulty with the meaning of words. No-one has stopped simonnorwich commenting, or threatened to do so, so his dissent and disagreement (and bad faith) have been tolerated.

It must be wonderful to have a cause and set of ideals that is so popular and widespread that you can afford to reject supporters for their vocabulary rather than their intentions.

Here’s a little reading material which might help: Intent Is Not Magic. Once you read that, perhaps you’ll realize that it shouldn’t be up to the people here to decipher someone’s intent. It’s not difficult to communicate in a concise, clear manner which leaves no room for endless interpretations of possible intent.

You might also keep in mind that different people come to the thread at different times, and often reply to a comment prior to reading the whole thread.

Hey, Pete Fraud, you pathetic ass-wipe, We’ve been triggered. We’ve lived through the experiences that caused those triggers and we aren’t anything remotely like “done”. We’re still here and guess what? A pesky, widdle whining bigot like you ain’t going to deter anyone. You’ve got your head under the blankets and you’re telling yourself that the bad ol’ progressives and feminists will go away any minute now….yep….any…minute….
Only, we’re still here and we show no signs of slowing. Scares the shit out of you, don’t it?

Let me see if I understand this. An important part of the US atheist/skeptik movement is mostly concern on how the GOP themes affect society and are therefor opposed to GOP-style “right-wind” ideology. So they reject anything that sounds GOP-ish including Pat Condell’s rants against Islam. On the other hand an important part of the Western Europe atheist/skeptik movement are concerned on sharia-inspired consessions to the state-of-the-law, that are allowed under the name of multi-culturalism.
Of course, I might be well mistaken, but I think that if you are a progressive feminist that opposes mysoginy in Islam and has been vocal agaisnt it, then you should not be offended by Pat’s description of the “progressive” feminism.
OTOH, it would be nice that Mr Condell provide examples of what he call “progressive” feminism.

So they reject anything that sounds GOP-ish including Pat Condell’s rants against Islam.

Sorry, bad analysis. Condell’s rants are rejected to their racism, lack of evidence, and paranoia.

then you should not be offended by Pat’s description of the “progressive” feminism.

Since as a side issue of Condell’s rants against Islam is a rant against feminism. In other words, don’t worry about my misogyny and protest about it, worry about that over there and leave me alone. Learn to read between the lines.

An important part of the US atheist/skeptik movement is mostly concern on how the GOP themes affect society and are therefor opposed to GOP-style “right-wind” ideology.

Uh, no. First: the US atheist movement is hardly a monolith as far as the GOP is concerned, and there are many atheists who intersect with the GOP’s more Libertarian/Randian branches. Those in the movement who strongly dislike the GOP do so because the GOP is home to most of the Christian supremacists in the US, and that party pushes Christian laws and God-based “science”, etc, which is pretty definitionally bad according to atheists.

So they reject anything that sounds GOP-ish including Pat Condell’s rants against Islam.

Again, atheists are not a monolith as far as rejecting these rants. Those who do reject the rants do so because Pat is being a racist shithead, arguing illogical and poorly-supported points, and is appropriating the pain caused to Muslims by their religion for the purpose of pushing his own agenda, which seems to include being allowed to be a racist asshole without being called out as a racist asshole. The GOP does all these things too when ranting about Islam, but they add a huge dollop of Christian supremacy, as is their habit. So: slightly different reasons to reject the anti-Islam rants from Pat and from the GOP, but certainly Pat’s rant here isn’t rejected by atheists because it “sounds GOP-ish”, even if there are similarities in idiocy and racism.

Of course, I might be well mistaken

You are.

I think that if you are a progressive feminist that opposes mysoginy [sic] in Islam and has been vocal agaisnt it, then you should not be offended by Pat’s description of the “progressive” feminism.

And that would be because you say so? I mean, I guess thanks for your input? In general, if you are a person/group fighting for the rights of a marginalized group to which you may belong yourself, and some asswipe who doesn’t give 2 shits about said marginalized group appropriates that marginalization for the singular purpose of criticizing you, while simultaneously being a racist dumbass, you might rightly get a wee bit irked.

I’ll reply for what its worth, I’ve reread simonnorwichs comments again and I still see the changes in his argument as responses to requests for clarification rather that changing of his central idea.

Perhaps I’m more inclined to cut him some slack and regard some of his comments as badly put rather than badly meant because I have sympathy with his position about the attitude of some parts of british system and the ill conceived deference they give to religious groups, even when it brings harm to members of those groups (particularly women).

Perhaps some of the other posters here are less inclined to be so charitable because of their past experience with trolls.

I don’t think simonnorwich is/was a troll (or a racist) but he seems to be gone now, so whatever.
Sorry this has been relatively OT.

then you should not be offended by Pat’s description of the “progressive” feminism.

Nonsense. Even IF Pat’s “progressive feminism” was actually supposed to be “actually not feminism but hypocritical politicians and media”, or somesuch, I wonder why he tweeted “the North Korea of free thought” in response to PZ calling him out for straw-manning feminists, and giving particular examples of feminists who are ardently and vehemently against misogyny in islam and among muslims!

And it’s still something to deride, criticise, dismiss and (even) get pissed off about. It would also be EXTREMELY childish, like kids in the playground: “Ha ha, fat kids can’t run! Hey, you smart-ass, I could out-run you any day of the year! Oh, I didn’t mean you, I meant the other fat kids!”

@”I know these guys ignore what I write, for sure. I rattled off a list of feminists I read —
Taslima, Maryam, Ophelia, Sikivu, Heina — to claim that any of them ignore Islamist oppression of women is simply willfully ridiculous and ignorant.”

Here is a quote from Ophelia Benson’s blog, from an article called “How can we be multicultural if we don’t allow sharia?”:

“I think I understand where it comes from. (I’m sure so does Anne Marie.) Muslims are underdogs here (here=at the University of Kent; the UK; “the West”; the developed world, the first world, the rich world). There is racism and xenophobia and anti-immigrant sentiment. We mustn’t add to it by being critical of sharia.”

As for Maryam, I think she does a disservice with this artificial distinction between “Islam” and “Islamism”. In truth, Islam, in all its mainstream forms, is both a religion and an elaborate political (and arguably totalitarian) system. Radicals haven’t “hijacked” Islam and turned it into a political ideology, they’re following it to the letter. It would be more accurate to say that moderates have hijacked Islam.

@”So he’s calling people mentally ill again is he? Not surprised. Condell once said that the entire country of Saudi Arabia is mentally ill. Got that? The entire country. But he’s not racist or anything because Saudi Arabia is a country and not a race.”

He specifically clarified that he meant the government, not every single man, woman and child in Saudi Arabia.

But I guess when a radical leftist says “USA is a racist imperialist country” that’s not bigoted.

Here is a quote from Ophelia Benson’s blog, from an article called “How can we be multicultural if we don’t allow sharia?”:

Nice quote-mine. She is explaining her understanding of the mindset behind people who are afraid to criticize sharia, not endorsing it. The whole rest of the post says that it’s a bad mindset and speaks approvingly of Anne Marie Waters for speaking against sharia.

Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaidensays

In truth, Islam, in all its mainstream forms, is both a religion and an elaborate political (and arguably totalitarian) system. Radicals haven’t “hijacked” Islam and turned it into a political ideology, they’re following it to the letter. It would be more accurate to say that moderates have hijacked Islam.

And when Christianity is followed to the letter, that’s not radical at all, is it?

Even more important, *moderate* Christians haven’t hijacked Christianity by refusing to follow the bible to the letter, have they? Doesn’t Genesis explicitly state:

I am the lord thy God, and I watched as the rocks coalesced out of a spinning dust of gas, star-stuff, and debris which you can totally date by measuring isotope ratios, using multiple lines of evidence to close in on the date with separate and independent evidence, all of which will lead you -about 2600 years after you write this down in Babylon- to conclude that 4.567 billion years is a really, really good estimate given everything you then know. So make sure you don’t pack your public school boards with idiots who want to teach something entirely contrary to established fact, okay?

Yeah, I think that’s how it goes, isn’t it? Definitely no creative interpretation on the part of Christianity’s moderates. They are absolutely true to their text. It’s only the Quran that is messed up in the original and corrupted/coopted by the moderates.

Pat Condell is not alone, it seems, in identifying Islam as a world-wide threat.

No shit, sherlock. All you xenophobes and “Western Society” exceptionalists love this kind of bullshit don’t you? (linked article by a psychologist is a racist diatribe, transparently attempting to mask its bigotry with sciency language: more of the same). What’s your point? If he were alone, it would hardly be worth fighting now would it? Nor would this comment thread even exist for you to dump your bilge.

#185 Twerp of Dickhead
Your denialism and complacency is showing. But please don’t hide it. as it could prove an endless source of amusement.
#186 CJO
Ever lived in a Muslim country as a dhimmi? I have – two of them. The analysis given in the link I posted is extremely pertinent – as well as rather measured. Try to bring your head out from the sand – at least far enough to see what really goes on in the world.
#187 Daz
Of course you haven’t noticed. Otherwise you’d be in a state of revolt. You will notice in due course, though, just as Europe did some 77 years ago, the last time fascist dogs (political f. rather than religious f. on that occasion) crept in under the radar.